Thoughts on the death of the West, Trump's High Seas piracy, who gains from Bulgarian euro membership, could a stablecoin destroy Europe, and Substack versus Only Fans
When we look back on it, the 'rules-based international order' died in 2003. We just didn't notice. Well now we can no longer pretend. Over the past few days I've read a lot of commentary and listened to a lot of centrist dad podcasts and it's honestly a bit sad, the bewilderment and confusion with which our pundit class greet the unforgiving realities of our new world. Mouthing platitudes about deescalation and international norms like sorcerers repeating failed spells; quibbling over the details of legal esoterica like medieval theologians debating scripture.
I don't want to go right over the edge into complete cynicism (though I am close to that edge) but I really do worry that our leaders simply do not comprehend — or know how to act — in a world where impunity is naked and unapologetic. And even if they did, I fear our systems are too sclerotic, too diffuse, too brittle to respond.
I agree that the collapse of the rules-based international order began a long time ago, and that the great powers have always acted with a degree of impunity, as America did in 2003. But I think Europeans are entitled to a degree of bewilderment and confusion, partly because up until six months ago, America was still committed to multilateralism and trying to work through the rules-based system to address global challenges. But also because there is absolutely no upside for Europe and other middle powers in an anarchic, might-makes-right world. Hence, as I see it, the willingness of the Global South to embrace China as it implausibly poses as the new custodian of global rules...
Simon a few things I would take issue with here, which I guess is good because otherwise we agree too much.
As Zaida also notes, the collapse of the rules-based order started a while ago: think Russia v. Crimea and Georgia, or China's aggressive stance in the South China sea. It predates Trump. Far be it from me to excuse Trump, but I think pointing the finger at him minimizes the problem. Four years from now Trump will be gone, but the decline of the West will continue.
I'm not sure the idea of an economic NATO extending into other areas would work. Europe's focus on economic issues has enabled Russia's aggression in Ukraine, for example. The decline of the West you describe is an issue of principles, and those principles are in full-fledged crisis domestically, and not just in the US. I am thinking of the tendency to curb free speech (especially obvious in the UK and Germany) and a rising discomfort with democracy itself when voters choose "unpresentable" parties. These need to be faced and solved if the West is to regain any kind of global leadership.
But, I completely agree that this decline is one of the most important features of the current moment. I had thought of it as a sunset of the West, but your "death of the west" while perhaps less poetic does seem more accurate.
(btw, I now wonder if we might have overlapped in Caracas!)
Hi Marco - as I said in my reply to Zaida, I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that the collapse of the rules-based order began with Trump. But I would make two points: first, that the G7 itself was at its most expansive and engaged under Joe Biden right up until six months ago. And second, that Trump is the first western leader to openly repudiate pretty much the entire edifice of multilateralism established since WW2 (including, sadly as I noted, the UN Treaty of the High Seas!). Even Putin pays lips service to the international rules-based order even as he openly repudiates it in Ukraine.
I am not sure I fully agree with you on the West's crisis of principles. But I would link the points you make about democracy and freedom of speech to the issues I was highlighting regarding Bulgarian euro membership. There's an unresolved tension in the EU between the mutual responsibilities among members of a common currency area and the range of political perspectives at a national level. Those tensions are only becoming harder to manage in an increasingly anarchic world order...
Thanks Simon, and on the second point you make, I fully agree. On the first, I can't resist pointing out that it was under Biden, when the G7 as you say was most expansive and engaged, that Putin invaded Ukraine with little consequences. (Europe seemed quite happy to see its trade sanctions bypassed.) But you are certainly right that Trump's explicit repudiation of the existing order, both in substance and in form, is egregious and extremely damaging. I think we do agree on the most important points -- and at some point we need to get together and discuss the other details and nuances over a coffee/beer/glass of wine. Meanwhile thanks again for the excellent analysis and stimulating and enjoyable exchanges.
A sweeping and incisive edition. The contrast between the G7’s internal fractures and the quiet cohesion emerging from ASEAN-GCC-China is stark—and telling.
When we look back on it, the 'rules-based international order' died in 2003. We just didn't notice. Well now we can no longer pretend. Over the past few days I've read a lot of commentary and listened to a lot of centrist dad podcasts and it's honestly a bit sad, the bewilderment and confusion with which our pundit class greet the unforgiving realities of our new world. Mouthing platitudes about deescalation and international norms like sorcerers repeating failed spells; quibbling over the details of legal esoterica like medieval theologians debating scripture.
I don't want to go right over the edge into complete cynicism (though I am close to that edge) but I really do worry that our leaders simply do not comprehend — or know how to act — in a world where impunity is naked and unapologetic. And even if they did, I fear our systems are too sclerotic, too diffuse, too brittle to respond.
I agree that the collapse of the rules-based international order began a long time ago, and that the great powers have always acted with a degree of impunity, as America did in 2003. But I think Europeans are entitled to a degree of bewilderment and confusion, partly because up until six months ago, America was still committed to multilateralism and trying to work through the rules-based system to address global challenges. But also because there is absolutely no upside for Europe and other middle powers in an anarchic, might-makes-right world. Hence, as I see it, the willingness of the Global South to embrace China as it implausibly poses as the new custodian of global rules...
Simon a few things I would take issue with here, which I guess is good because otherwise we agree too much.
As Zaida also notes, the collapse of the rules-based order started a while ago: think Russia v. Crimea and Georgia, or China's aggressive stance in the South China sea. It predates Trump. Far be it from me to excuse Trump, but I think pointing the finger at him minimizes the problem. Four years from now Trump will be gone, but the decline of the West will continue.
I'm not sure the idea of an economic NATO extending into other areas would work. Europe's focus on economic issues has enabled Russia's aggression in Ukraine, for example. The decline of the West you describe is an issue of principles, and those principles are in full-fledged crisis domestically, and not just in the US. I am thinking of the tendency to curb free speech (especially obvious in the UK and Germany) and a rising discomfort with democracy itself when voters choose "unpresentable" parties. These need to be faced and solved if the West is to regain any kind of global leadership.
But, I completely agree that this decline is one of the most important features of the current moment. I had thought of it as a sunset of the West, but your "death of the west" while perhaps less poetic does seem more accurate.
(btw, I now wonder if we might have overlapped in Caracas!)
Hi Marco - as I said in my reply to Zaida, I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that the collapse of the rules-based order began with Trump. But I would make two points: first, that the G7 itself was at its most expansive and engaged under Joe Biden right up until six months ago. And second, that Trump is the first western leader to openly repudiate pretty much the entire edifice of multilateralism established since WW2 (including, sadly as I noted, the UN Treaty of the High Seas!). Even Putin pays lips service to the international rules-based order even as he openly repudiates it in Ukraine.
I am not sure I fully agree with you on the West's crisis of principles. But I would link the points you make about democracy and freedom of speech to the issues I was highlighting regarding Bulgarian euro membership. There's an unresolved tension in the EU between the mutual responsibilities among members of a common currency area and the range of political perspectives at a national level. Those tensions are only becoming harder to manage in an increasingly anarchic world order...
Thanks Simon, and on the second point you make, I fully agree. On the first, I can't resist pointing out that it was under Biden, when the G7 as you say was most expansive and engaged, that Putin invaded Ukraine with little consequences. (Europe seemed quite happy to see its trade sanctions bypassed.) But you are certainly right that Trump's explicit repudiation of the existing order, both in substance and in form, is egregious and extremely damaging. I think we do agree on the most important points -- and at some point we need to get together and discuss the other details and nuances over a coffee/beer/glass of wine. Meanwhile thanks again for the excellent analysis and stimulating and enjoyable exchanges.
Very much looking forward to that, Marco. Let me know when you are in London!
A sweeping and incisive edition. The contrast between the G7’s internal fractures and the quiet cohesion emerging from ASEAN-GCC-China is stark—and telling.
Alexander
Alexander